This weekend, Iran’s compliance with the terms of last summer’s nuclear
deal was officially verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Shortly
thereafter, the P5+1 nations (UN Security Council + Germany) proceeded
to lift the majority of their sanctions against Iran, pursuant to the terms
of the agreement. Additionally, coinciding with this agreement, the US and Iran
successfully negotiated a prisoner swap whereby Iran released 5 US prisoners and got 7 Iranian prisoners
released in return.

These were remarkably positive developments for all parties involved.
Any reasonable fears remaining about Iran developing a nuclear weapon were mollified,
and the Iranian people regained access to the world markets, which will surely
be a boon to their economy. Equally important, it showed that diplomacy can
produce success, and it was a win for the voices of restraint and moderation
in both Iran and the United States. Trade was opened, and the war drums were
muffled. Given Obama’s record on virtually every other foreign policy issue
of his presidency,* it almost seemed too good to be true. A day later, we learned
that it was.

As a practical matter, these sanctions aren’t nearly as bad for the
Iranian people as the initial ones were. They are targeted in nature, and only 11 entities made the list. Presumably, this will have a negligible impact
on the Iranian economy and will happily do very little to offset the gains from
the lifted sanctions.

That said, these sanctions are important as a possible sign of things
to come. On the heels of diffusing several long-standing diplomatic issues and
avoiding a potential crisis last week, the US had
a choice to make. We could either fully bring Iran in from the cold and treat
it like any other nation, that is neither perfectly virtuous nor perfectly evil.
Or we could continue to be hostile towards Iran to score domestic political
points and appease our allies, principally Israel and Saudi Arabia. The new sanctions
suggest that we are choosing the path of hostility.

We know this because the premise for these new sanctions is highly
dubious. It is debated by some whether the recent ballistic missile tests violated
the letter or spirit of UN resolutions against missile development. But this
is the wrong debate. It is more important to ask why those UN resolutions against
Iran existed in the first place. It turns out the restrictions against ballistic
missile development were implemented in connection with the nuclear program.
That is, the restrictions were originally put in place to prevent Iran from developing
a delivery vehicle for the nuclear weapons they were allegedly developing. So
now that the nuclear issue is resolved, implementing new sanctions on the ostensibly
related ballistic missile program doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even if it is
legal based on the letter of the restrictions, it’s easy to see this as a show
of bad faith by the US, e specially coming a day after the
triumph of lifting other sanctions.

Now, some have pointed out that it is wrong for people who support
peace to oppose sanctions on weapons development. While this suggestion is understandable,
it is flawed for two reasons.

First, this ban is not uniform. It’s not a treaty restricting development
of weapons across all nations or even a détente kind of agreement between
rivals to lower tensions, which would certainly warrant support. Rather, it
singles out one nation in particular for special, negative treatment. As we’ve
said, practically, this is likely of little importance. But symbolically, it
means Iran is still deemed a pariah state by some, which increases, rather than
decreases tensions.

Second, it’s tough to see how Iran has committed the kind of exceptional atrocities
that might warrant entirely unique treatment. It is often pointed out by critics
that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and has committed human rights abuses
at home. Under any plausible definition of terrorism, this is certainly true.
If nothing else, Iran’s support for notoriously brutal Shiite militias in Iraq
and their ongoing
competition with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the most executions, would
check both boxes. But, they are far from alone in this regard. Saudi Arabia,
with its
oppression at home , brutal campaign in
Yemen, and
support for jihadists in Syria , would qualify. Similarly, NATO ally Turkey’s
newly ramped up
repression of press freedom at home and
their collusion with Al Qaeda in Syria would also qualify. If we’re going
to sanction Iran on these grounds, consistency would seem to demand we cast
a broader net. But obviously, it goes without saying that this is not the path
the US will choose. Turkey is still an ally, and Saudi Arabia somehow has a
seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

Opposition to sanctions, old or new, does not rest
on a belief that Iran’s government is a paragon of virtue. Nor does it require
apologizing or exonerating them for their misdeeds. It only requires one to
believe that the rule of law is just as important internationally as it is domestically;
that Iran deserves the same consideration as other countries; and that sanctions
and criticism should be is sued based on a country’s actions, not just their alliances.
These latest sanctions do not follow that script. And right at the time when
peace looked certain to emerge, they moved us one step back toward hostility.
The new sanctions aren’t about arms control, and they’re moving us closer to
war, not peace.

*I’m excluding Cuba here. We haven’t fully normalized relations with
them yet, but we’re much closer than when Obama took office, and he deserves
credit for that.

” Iran’s support for notoriously brutal Shiite militias in Iraq and their ongoing competition with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the most executions, would check both boxes” as if America does not treat it’s citizens any better. Recall Waco Government killings? I could list hundreds of evil USA deeds–which are worse than Iran’s or any country.

Iran invaded Iraq in the 1970s, stationing a battalion in Kurdish territory for more than a year.

Adriaan de Leeuw

Don’t forget to add the US to your execution of its nationals list, absolutely Texas as a State is right up there on its lonesome, add the other states and well……………! But don’t forget the Saudis either, Public beheadings are a common sight in the Kingdom of Saud! We shouldn’t forget that the same Kingdom of Saud is responsible for funding Isis and Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) in Syria, how many people by extension have been killed by them! Iraq invaded Iran years ago at the behest of the US, who through Germany supplied them with WMD in the form of Nerve gas and other chemical weapons! Ever wonder WHY the US was adamant that Iraq had Chemical weapons …………they supplied them!

Eric Schuler

The article wasn’t intended to compare the relative merits of Iran and the US with respect to human rights or foreign policy. Certainly it’s true that the US executes many people, and Waco was an atrocity. And on balance, the US is almost certainly responsible for more human suffering in the modern era than Iran, when one counts Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. My point was that we can acknowledge that Iran is not a perfect country and still oppose the new sanctions against them. Indeed, I think we should acknowledge this reality because it makes the argument more credible to people that don’t already share our perspective. It should make us slightly less likely to be accused of being Iran or fill-in-the-blank apologists, and hopefully more likely to have our arguments sincerely considered. What do you think?